Plenary, 30 Mar 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, March 30, 2006

Official Report 748KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-2209)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to Scotland.

I can hardly wait.

I remind the First Minister that, in the chamber in September 2003, he said that under the law elderly people are entitled to free personal care immediately, from the day they are assessed as needing it. However, Executive guidance says that entitlement starts only when a local council is in a position to provide the care. Does the First Minister accept that there is enormous room for confusion between those two statements? For the avoidance of doubt, will he confirm today which is correct?

The Minister for Health and Community Care and the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care have made the situation perfectly clear. When the assessment of need takes place, that is when care should start to be provided. There are different ways in which local authorities can provide care—we understand that. There is an absolute need for more consistency throughout Scotland, which is precisely why the health ministers have been discussing those matters with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

I suggest to the First Minister that the situation is far from clear. Will he concede that, right now, many vulnerable elderly people are not getting the free personal care to which they are legally entitled? To illustrate the problem, I draw to the First Minister's attention a letter from Dundee City Council, which says that

"only so many free personal care allowances can be allocated per month."

It is making many elderly people wait 90 days before allocating free care. Is the First Minister aware that Dundee is not alone in rationing free personal care in that way? Half of all councils in Scotland are being forced to operate waiting lists. Does the First Minister agree with COSLA that the problem is not the legislation passed in the Parliament but the confusion of the Executive guidance, which seems to permit those rationing arrangements, as well as a funding shortfall that gives councils no alternative but to put those arrangements in place? Will the First Minister take immediate action on both fronts to ensure that all elderly people get the care to which they are legally entitled?

Our position is clear. It has been stated in the chamber on many occasions that local authorities should assess appropriately the individuals in question. Having made an assessment and agreed that care is required, they should then deliver that care for free. That is a perfectly clear position, which should be understandable by every local authority in Scotland. It is because those issues in some local authorities have been drawn to the attention of ministers that discussions have been taking place between ministers and COSLA to ensure greater consistency throughout Scotland. However, the absolute policy objective of having that consistency should not be in any doubt.

The problem is that the policy is not being implemented throughout the country. Again, I refer the First Minister to Dundee City Council. Free personal care allowances will now be paid only after an individual has been in care for 90 days. There will be no backdated payment to the date of admission. Will the First Minister accept the realities that councils are facing? Is he aware that, according to statistics published by the Executive only yesterday, the cost to councils of providing free personal care has gone up by £24 million, but the funding allocated for it by the Executive has gone up by only £4 million? Will the Executive accept that therein lies the problem? Does the First Minister agree that it is somewhat ironic that on the very day that he will reportedly hand out millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to Scottish Enterprise to compensate it for its own incompetence, he will not act with similar urgency to ensure that vulnerable old folk get the care that the Parliament said that they were legally entitled to get?

First, I am sure that it will interest businesses and individuals throughout Scotland to know that Ms Sturgeon would not support additional resources for Scottish Enterprise to enable it to meet the increased demand for its services this year—and I hope next year too. Secondly, Ms Sturgeon's attempts to excuse local authorities for not consistently implementing the policy on free personal care will be of interest to pensioners throughout Scotland. It is essential that the policy is consistently implemented and it is not good enough to misrepresent figures. If Ms Sturgeon had checked her facts, she would know that the figures on the cost of free personal care include the cost of the services that were provided free in advance of the new policy's introduction throughout Scotland and, therefore, the figures that she quotes do not match up.

It is essential that the policy is implemented consistently and that those who are responsible for it, having negotiated and agreed the financial settlement, implement it properly. That is what we consistently seek, and it is not acceptable for Ms Sturgeon or anybody else to provide excuses or reasons for those responsible not to implement the policy properly.

I am not offering excuses; I am saying that the buck stops with the First Minister and that he should do something about it. The problem is that the cost of free personal care is rising faster than the funding for it and many elderly people are falling through that gap.

I will talk solutions. I remind the First Minister that, when the Parliament introduced free personal care, the Westminster Government clawed back money that should have helped to pay for the policy. Is he aware that Lord Sutherland, the architect of free personal care, estimates that the amount that the Westminster Government retains now stands at £40 million per year? Does he agree with Lord Sutherland that the Executive should reopen, expose and pursue the issue to help to bridge the funding gap and ensure that elderly people get the care that the Parliament wants them to have?

Dear, oh dear, oh dear. We get to the heart of the matter again: if there is a problem in Scotland it must be somebody else's fault—we must blame London or Westminster. The fact that it is raining today is probably the fault of somebody in London and Ms Sturgeon would want to blame them too.

This Parliament is about Scotland taking responsibility, not giving it away; it is about Scotland having policies that suit Scots and that are consistently implementable here, although with some local discretion and judgment. We are proud of the policy of free personal and nursing care for older people in Scotland. We are proud that it has been fully financed in agreement with the local authorities and we are determined to ensure that they implement the policy consistently throughout Scotland. We are working towards that. We are not providing excuses or blaming somebody else somewhere else, but ensuring that we take Scotland forward.

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2210)

I have no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister but, when I do, I will not blame him for the weather.

That is one of the few things for which the Prime Minister is not responsible.

The fact that nearly half of our councils have put elderly people on waiting lists for free personal care is an appalling indictment of the Executive. Elderly people are not interested in squabbles between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Executive and, to be frank, neither are their families. Having adopted the policy of free personal care, the Parliament has not only a moral but a legal responsibility to frail elderly people. The First Minister said in his response to Ms Sturgeon that assessment of need is when care should be provided, but I tell him that that is not happening. In many council areas throughout Scotland, there are elderly people with unmet needs who have been assessed and have been told to join a waiting list. They are not getting the help to which they and their families thought they were entitled.

The longer-term problems that are associated with the policy need to be addressed, but there is a current crisis. Does the First Minister accept that the Parliament's reputation is at stake and will he accept his responsibility to find an immediate solution to the current crisis?

That is precisely why the health ministers have been engaged in discussions with local authorities and their representatives on the subject. We want the policy to be implemented consistently throughout Scotland and it is clear that, when assessment takes place, the care should be provided. Local authorities should deliver that care, and that is why ministers have actively discussed with local authorities the need to deliver it locally.

Political leadership is all about priorities, and the Executive's actions speak louder than words. The First Minister has already issued two glowing tributes to free personal care today and said in his reply to Ms Sturgeon:

"We are proud of the policy of free personal and nursing care".

However, the policy is not being delivered. The testament and evidence for that are the frail, vulnerable, elderly people who are being looked after by carers who are unable to cope. The situation is utterly unacceptable, First Minister, and any response short of a solution is not on.

If funding is the key, the public are entitled to ask why money can be found for the enterprise agencies. If money can be found for those, surely to heaven there is a clamant demand that money can be found to sort out the current crisis now.

The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will outline our plans for Scottish Enterprise in his statement to the Parliament this afternoon. It would be entirely inconsistent if our devolved Government, having said that economic growth is our top priority, failed to ensure that we can deliver the projects that are required to promote further growth throughout Scotland. However, there will be consistency in the Deputy First Minister's announcement this afternoon.

We know for a fact that 41,000 people currently receive free personal care services without charge at home, and a further 9,000 receive the appropriate services in care homes. We are proud of those services. We are proud of that policy because it was delivered by the Parliament and the devolved Government here in Scotland. At the same time, it is essential that the policy is delivered consistently throughout Scotland. We will continue to discuss with local authorities the consistent implementation of the policy. There is an urgency to the issue, but it is being tackled and I am sure that we will make some progress.

The point is that, as we speak, the Parliament is in public breach of trust with the people of Scotland and with our frail elderly people who were given a legal commitment by a statutory enactment of the Parliament.

If the First Minister is reluctant to use the money that has been set aside for Scottish Enterprise, I can suggest a couple of alternatives. The First Minister is due to get £87 million in consequentials from last week's budget. He also has £100 million unallocated in the health budget for 2007-08. Instead of setting aside money for what we expect will be pre-election bribes, why will the First Minister not use at least some of that money right now to help the people who currently need it?

I do not agree that, having previously agreed with local authorities budgets that were based on proper estimates for the cost of the policy, we should now find some excuse for them to renege on the promises that they made in line with the policy that we set out in the Parliament. We will set out the policy consistently and demand a consistent implementation of it by local authorities. We will expect them to deliver the policy within the sums that they agreed with us for implementation. That is the right approach, rather than bailing people out and making excuses for the fact that they are not delivering the policy.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues they will discuss. (S2F-2223)

I expect to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland tomorrow. We will discuss a range of matters of importance to Scotland.

The Executive's new climate change programme that was published this morning is the best rhetoric yet. As the First Minister will be aware, Margaret Beckett admitted this week that the United Kingdom will fail to meet its 2010 climate change target. Page 11 of the Executive's new strategy shows that, even worse, Scotland already lags behind England in reducing greenhouse gases. Does the First Minister accept that we now have it in black and white—and on a red and blue graph—that England may be failing but Scotland is doing even worse?

In recent weeks and months in the chamber, I have occasionally praised the Green Party for honesty and principle. I hope to be able to do that often, but I cannot do so in respect of Robin Harper's question.

We have set out this morning a target for tackling climate change that will be far more ambitious in Scotland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We have done that after due consideration and we believe that the target is implementable and deliverable. The target has been welcomed this morning by WWF Scotland, RSPB Scotland and Friends of the Earth Scotland. I am happy to take their support for the new target that we have set and the actions that we have outlined as a genuine expression of opinion. Any attempt by Mr Harper to distort the situation demeans both him and his party.

My first question referred to present performance—performance so far. We welcome the targets that the First Minister has set, but the Executive is building new motorways, promoting the trebling of air travel and even considering the removal of bridge tolls. Is it not the case that the Executive will fail to meet its targets because, despite the fact that the new strategy is called "Changing Our Ways", the Executive is not prepared to change its ways? In particular, will the First Minister bite the bullet and introduce measures to achieve a real reduction in the amount of traffic on our roads—yes or no?

In recent weeks and months, I have been pleased to be in a position to launch Scotland's first new branch railway for almost two decades. We look forward to the expansion of our railway services and network and of our other public transport services in the months and years ahead. That is a clear commitment by the Administration.

I have said before to Mr Harper that I believe that taking one air journey from a location in Scotland to a location elsewhere in the world is better than taking two air journeys, via London, Amsterdam or another city. That is one reason why we support direct air routes, which have environmental as well as economic and social benefits. They are an integral part of our transport policies, which will make a contribution to ensuring that Scotland delivers on the target that we have set.

---

Asylum-seeker Children

To ask the First Minister what progress has been made on an agreement between the Scottish Executive and the United Kingdom Government in respect of policies relating to the removal of the children of failed asylum-seeker families. (S2F-2215)

We have reached agreement with the Home Office on a number of substantive issues to address the concerns that we have raised with it, including on early involvement of local services; independent inspection of services; enhanced disclosure checks on all immigration service staff who are involved in removals where children are present; new arrangements to handle complaints against immigration officers; and a review of the family removals process, including the timing of removals.

I welcome the changes that the First Minister has outlined, which reflect the work of the Executive and the Parliament and, above all, the commitment of the pupils and staff of Drumchapel high school and the wider community. The measures that have been agreed are improvements to the present wholly unacceptable removal system. I inform members that the students and staff of Drumchapel high school, as well as the Scottish Refugee Council, view the measures as progress—so far. Will time spent by children of asylum-seeker families in Scotland, during which they have put down roots in local communities, form part of what Mr McNulty called at a press conference on Monday

"the continuing dialogue with the Scottish Executive on these very serious matters"?

I, too, welcome the progress that has been made and am grateful to the officials and ministers who have been involved in taking the matter forward. At the same time, I believe that we need to continue our dialogue with the Home Office and the immigration service. I praise the pupils, in particular, and the staff of Drumchapel high school and other schools in Glasgow, who raised these issues with us, and assure them of our continuing interest. There is a particular issue in relation to youngsters who have been in Scotland for some years and who, through no fault of their own, have to leave the country because their parents have not managed to secure refugee status. For them to return home without the qualifications towards which they have worked would be very unfortunate. The dialogue that we will continue to have with the Home Office will include discussion of that issue, although we understand from the Home Office that it is prepared to take such circumstances into account in the decisions that are made about both status and timing.

I congratulate the Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees and the Glasgow girls and other schoolkids who pushed this issue forward. As the First Minister is aware, the devil is in the detail. I await the precise details of the proposals that the Executive has agreed with Mr McNulty. Is the First Minister aware of the national asylum support service contract with Glasgow City Council? Basically, the service has been privatised, which threatens the provision of specialist language teachers for asylum-seeker children at schools in Glasgow. Will the First Minister assure us that there will be no loss of those valuable assets to Glasgow and to the children of asylum seekers?

The contract is primarily between the Home Office and Glasgow City Council, and that is right and proper. It is also the case that we provide additional assistance in Glasgow for integration and teaching programmes in the local community. My understanding is that that amount of money is increasing rather than decreasing.

It is good to see improvements and to hear the First Minister committing himself to on-going dialogue. However, other areas of devolved policy are impacted by United Kingdom asylum policy, including health, public services and our economy. Will the First Minister ensure that the on-going dialogue also involves a challenge to the UK's policy of denying asylum seekers the right to work, which has a profound impact on their mental health, as well as damaging our economy and costing our public services money?

The objective should be not to have people waiting for decisions over such a long period that the inability to work has the impact on them that Patrick Harvie describes. Therefore, the most important priority is to have a speedier decision-making process—a good, transparent decision-making process—that is effective for the families involved as well as for Britain as a whole. That should be the priority, rather than elongating the process by making other changes.

---

McKie Reports (Publication)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will review the decision not to publish the reports it commissioned in relation to its defence of the action against it by Shirley McKie. (S2F-2216)

Both parties to a litigation should be free to seek expert advice to prepare their case and are under no obligation to disclose that advice before, during or after proceedings.

The Executive will continue to respect the normal principles relating to legal confidentiality in connection with civil litigation or criminal prosecution, and within that context ministers will be as helpful as we can be to the parliamentary inquiry.

Lord McCluskey said at the weekend that there was absolutely no rule that prevented the Executive from disclosing those reports. Why is the Executive not prepared to release them voluntarily? Given that even the Blair Government eventually released the Attorney General's advice on the war in Iraq—after saying for years that it could not possibly do that—would it not be better for the Executive's reputation to go now for openness rather than concealment?

Such decisions should not be made lightly. Case law such as Johnstone v the National Coal Board 1968 sets out the basic principle that reports prepared by one side in litigation are not recoverable by the other. Further case law—Hunter v Douglas, Reyburn & Company Limited 1993—states that that privilege does not cease on conclusion of the case. Therefore, case law supports our legal approach.

At the same time, we are determined to assist the parliamentary inquiry. In the light of requests that have been received from the Justice 1 Committee, ministers will look at how we can be as helpful as we possibly can and provide the maximum amount of information that we can to the parliamentary inquiry to allow MSPs to do their business properly.

I welcome the First Minister's reply to Alasdair Morgan that he will do everything in his power to co-operate with the Justice 1 Committee inquiry. I hope that the First Minister agrees that by working together we can contribute to restoring confidence in the Scottish fingerprint service. Does he agree that that should be the primary aim of the inquiry?

Does the First Minister welcome today's announcement that three international experts have agreed to scrutinise and advise on the implementation of the action plan, including Bruce Grant, head of the Metropolitan police counter-terrorism unit, and Arie Zeelenberg, a senior fingerprint officer in the Dutch national police force, who has been particularly critical of the Scottish fingerprint service?

Does the First Minister also agree that at least some of these actions can contribute to restoring faith in our fingerprint service, so that in future the general public can have confidence in our system, we can be benchmarked against other countries' fingerprint services and we will be proud of what we have done?

I have made the point in the chamber before that it is interesting and at times worrying that members on the Opposition benches have been more concerned about revisiting legal cases that have been properly heard in our courts than in the future of the fingerprint service, the reports that have delivered improvements in the service and whether those reports have been implemented effectively. That the Justice 1 Committee is looking at the matter is a good move and I hope that in its scrutiny it will help us to secure the public confidence that there should be in the service in the years to come.

I also welcome Lord Hodge's judgment. He said this morning that the Scottish ministers have acted reasonably in defending the case and that it is reasonable for ministers to take the view that the misidentification was not malicious and was in good faith. Those are issues that have properly been heard in court. That is the right place for them to be heard, but the future of the fingerprint service and the credibility of the justice system are issues that should concern this Parliament. I hope that the parliamentary inquiry will help to secure the evidence on which we can build confidence in future.

Lord Hodge found specifically that it was reasonable, on the basis of the conflicting expert opinion about the identification of the disputed print, for ministers to settle the case on the basis of there having been no malice on the part of the Scottish Criminal Record Office fingerprint officers. Will the First Minister comment on where that leaves the Justice 1 Committee in its deliberations? Does he think that that will help us?

I have tried hard since the beginning of the most recent debate on the issue not to interfere with the work of the Justice 1 Committee and to ensure that we co-operate with committee members as fully as possible; we will do so throughout the inquiry. It is for the Justice 1 Committee to reflect on Lord Hodge's judgment this morning, but the committee should take account of the fact that he said, having weighed up all the evidence, that ministers have acted reasonably in pursuing the case and that there was a case to be heard in court, although the matter has now been settled outwith court in the interests of all concerned. At the same time, I hope that the committee will join me and others in securing a way forward that ensures that all those who work in our justice service can have confidence in one another, as well as the public having confidence in them.

Does the First Minister agree that it would be bizarre for the Minister for Justice to continue to refuse to release the Mackay report or any other final reports of commissions relating to the McKie case and the Scottish fingerprint service, if the Justice 1 Committee calls for the authors of those reports to give evidence as part of its SCRO inquiry?

Most of the time, I admire and respect the way in which Margaret Mitchell pursues issues relating to crime. I have heard her speak on criminal justice issues in the past with some passion, and I respect that. However, I do not think that she does her case any good by asking the Minister for Justice to release a report to which that minister has never had access. The Mackay report was commissioned by the Lord Advocate as part of the judgments in the Crown Office about a prosecution, and it would be entirely wrong for ministers to see a copy of that report, to have any access to it or to make any decisions relating to it. That report should remain private, as part of the work of the prosecution service. I hope that Margaret Mitchell will withdraw her suggestion and allow us to move on.

---

Local Government Pension Scheme <br />(Rule of 85)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive still intends to abolish the rule of 85 in the local government pension scheme. (S2F-2227)

Our legal advice remains that the European Community equal treatment framework directive 2000/78/EC has rendered the rule of 85 in local government pensions discriminatory in terms of age. We will continue to seek a solution that offers a balance between meeting our legal obligations and providing protection for local government workers.

I thank the First Minister for that reply, but I am disappointed by it. Is he aware of the statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the European employment directive provides for different treatment on the ground of age, which actually supports the legal opinions published by Unison and by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and contradicts the Executive's unpublished legal advice? Will the First Minister accept that the unions and COSLA could easily settle the dispute today if the Executive acknowledged what everyone else knows—that it has got it wrong—and does he accept that any further disruption is the Executive's responsibility if it does not acknowledge that? The First Minister said in an earlier answer to Nicola Sturgeon that the Parliament wants to accept responsibility, not give it away. Will he accept responsibility for resolving the dispute and tell us what his proposals are for achieving that?

First, there is an obligation and a responsibility on this Parliament and on the devolved Government to implement our legal obligations. We intend to continue to do that. Even if some parties in the Parliament would prefer us to break the law, we will not do that. We will implement our legal obligations.

We have said clearly that if the trade unions are successful in their current legal action against the interpretation of the framework we will immediately work towards the new interpretation, but we do not expect that action to be successful.

There is no need whatsoever for the current industrial action. Last Thursday the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform, Tom McCabe, made a perfectly reasonable proposal to the trade unions in Scotland. He said that we were willing to discuss transitional arrangements for existing members of staff.

The directive does not come into force until October. That is some time away, so there is plenty of time for discussion and no need for disruption to be caused to members of the public. In particular, there is no need for disruption—as is currently planned—of the meat hygiene service. I call on the unions to withdraw the call out of meat hygiene inspectors next week, which could result in the loss of up to a thousand jobs in the meat processing services in Scotland. That would be an unjustifiable outcome of a dispute that is nowhere near its conclusion and on which further discussion is required.

Is the Executive seeking a derogation from the European Union regulations to allow the continuation of the rule of 85?

The Executive and ministers have sought clarification from the European Commission on the statements that were made by a spokesperson on its behalf earlier this year. The clarification that we have received is that the spokesperson was speaking out of context.

We have yet again sought clarification of our legal opinion. We remain firm in our position that the legal opinion that we have is accurate. We are therefore determined to implement our legal obligations, subject to the current court case.

We have said that in Scotland we are prepared to have distinctive discussions with the unions. The position is that the pension scheme in Scotland is currently in a different position from that south of the border. We believe that there is scope for further discussion of the matter in Scotland. We believe that the unions in Scotland should sit round the table with their employers in COSLA and with ourselves to try to negotiate a settlement. There is no reason for industrial action in Scotland at this time. The solution to that is not a derogation, but dialogue. It is time for that dialogue to start properly.

Meeting suspended until 14:15.

On resuming—